We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Casey Anthony Acquitted of Daughter's Murder
| 152 | 17791 |
I think this is ridiculous!!! Please share your opinions and thoughts on this case. I can not believe she got away with murdering her daughter..
- 152 Replies
glad its over!!! i get to watch the actual news on tv now!
there were a few lol moments, but it was mostly incompetence...
I doubt she is mentally ill. If she was, why didn't she plead so?
She could be a sociopath. Since only 1% of cases in women are even treated, let alone detected, it's quite easy that no one would even know.
What, should the jury be psychically aware of what happened? Or should they merely look at the person and decide guilt? What do you suggest, if explanation is so unsavory?
You know Xzeno, I never once said I thought she was guilty, I simply gave reasons as to why they didn't find her guilty. Explainations aren't unsavory, in fact, they are required. It's because things are not explained that we either let the guilty walk free, or the innocent to be condemned.
People just want someone to blame. I'm just glad the jury declared her not guilty. It's trials like these -- a not guilty verdict against the majority (and stupid) public opinion -- that restore my faith in the legal system.
Now, I agree that people are out for someone to blame, however, it's cases like these that make me question the legal system. In fact, regardless of the verdict I question the legal system. Especially the jury.
You see, I have no faith in twelve people, strangers I do not know. I have no faith in them to come to a conclusive decision on the guilt of another person. You see, the law states that you are allowed to be "tried by your peers". What does that even mean? My peers? Certainly not twelve people selected out of over a hundred or so.
Think about this, let us say, for instance, I am to go to trial for murder. Now, the law says that I shall be tried by my peers, but I hardly consider a poverty struck 50 year old woman my peer, nor do I consider an 80 old middle income my peer. Why? Well I am a 20 year old white male, average build and above average intelligence. When faced with adversity I either stone face everything or break down. Either of which responses may seem condemning. But, also, we must consider my age, my race and my gender. People are far more likely to condemn a young man than they are a women. It's true. The only thing I have going my way? I'm white. Even my intelligence is used against me, because a defense would point out just how smart I actually am.
So, who are my peers? Well I would consider any one of any nationality, so long as they are above average intelligence, able to comprehend legal jargon, and range from 20-30 years of age. I would also prefer middle to lower middle income, because such people would understand my life far better than a man of 60 who has been poor, only to strike rich.
You see, the problem isn't the verdict, it's the jury. I know the process for which the pick a jury is extensive, but they simply use guess work, and limitted methods of profiling people. This is not enough. A jury must be educated enough to understand a case. Now, you may say that could change the verdict, but that's the point. It could, but that doesn't mean it will. Often times juries are not as educated as we would like them to be and that can lead to disasterous results.
Do I think Casey Anthony is guilty? I'm undecided. There is evidence there to convict of some form of manslaughter, however, there is not enough evidence for first degree murder.
I think that the prosecutor didn't have sufficient evidence to put up for the death penalty. I think the evidence against her was circumstantial AND if we believe in the American Justice System all people are innocent until proven guilty. She was proven innocent, whether she truly guilty or innocent only she and her family will know until more evidence come to light.
People are far more likely to condemn a young man than they are a women. It's true.
You might have a point there. I was watching abc's What Would You Do (hidden camera show studing how ordinary people react to stuff like bulying, stealing, fighting, vandalism, etc). They set one up where a man was beating his girlfriend on a park bench. Nearly everyone called 911 or broke it up right away. They reversed the situation so a woman was irate and beating a man. Like 90% of ladies walking by either did nothing or supported her actions (The other 10% watched for about 5 minutes from a distance, warned them, and called 911). Guys didn't do anything either because they didn't percieve a threat. They sat down about 10 ladies who walked by and did nothing and asked them why they did nothing. They said they didn't see anything wrong with it. When asked why they didn't defend the man, one spoke up and said "He looked guilty." and others nodded in agreement.
whether she truly guilty or innocent only she and her family will know until more evidence come to light.
It wouldn't matter what else they might find. You can't try the same person for the same crime twice. That's double jeopardy.
The only way there could be another trial is if they find evidence that says someone else did it. Or that someone was bribed or something. But likely the first one.
A jury must be educated enough to understand a case.
Therein lies the problem, jury duty over the years has become a chore rather than a civic duty. Offering a point of view from my own peers, jury duty is a task for those idiots who can't get out of it.
Obviously there are those who feel the opposite, but I can honestly say that from what I've seen, if people are too lazy to vote, what makes us think that they'll be ready for jury duty.
People just want someone to blame. I'm just glad the jury declared her not guilty. It's trials like these -- a not guilty verdict against the majority (and stupid) public opinion -- that restore my faith in the legal system.
Let's assume for a moment that she did infact kill her daughter, and let's say that in an interview with a news service, or magazine she admits to the deed. And of course due to the beauty that is double jeopardy (not being sarcastic) she cannot be charged with the crime, what would happen to this sudden faith in the legal system?
From what I have read and heard, the easiest way to break down what happened is the prosecutors were going for the death penalty. As far as I understand by expert lawyers and prosecutors, they overshot with the death penalty. If the death penalty wasn't an option she would have been charged more severely. With the death penalty you ar enow talking about someones life. Prosecution wasn't equivalent to what should have been charged in the jurors eyes.
I really had a hard time with her acquittal. Maybe the jury didn't want to decide such a fate. The evidence was certainly there[I watched a lot of it on TV]but the jury seemed not to notice.
An other example why Juries are crap. Worst. Trial. Concept. Ever.
I was just as angry as all of you.
But they did not have a cause of death, which didn't help.
But she lied several times and partied all the time.
I think she murdered her daughter, and I think she got away with it too. But who knows maybe she did drown... doubt it. Worst of all she going to get a bunch of money.
Worst of all she going to get a bunch of money.
ummmm...? what? From where?
ummmm...? what? From where?
She can pursue book deals, movie deals, and any other venture that will give her money. She was not found guilty, and because of that she can make as much money off of her situation as she pleases.
Ah but that's making money not simply getting it like a payoff or something. And it's money made from the stupidity of the obsessed populus that made her famous/infamous in the first place. Quite an irony. This case would've been almost nothing if the media didn't boast it.
I say bravo jury. I agree with Zeno. Irrespective of whether she actually did it or not, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murder, and so the only judiciously correct decision would be for her to be declared not guilty. Her public image and how the case is presented by and to the press is not evidence as to whether or not she murdered her daughter, and judging by the decision, the other stuff wasn't enough either.
What is ignoring the fact that your daughter has been missing for over a month? That is negligence that could've resulted in the death of the child. I guess they didn't think it did. Negligence resulting in the death of a child in whatever way is still a punishable offense. If only the stupid prosecution hadn't gone for the death penalty they prob could've done something about her being a terrible mother. (aside from her having possibly killed the child)
I think they pursued some form of that... but it resulted in the death penalty ( I think...) ...so that may have swayed the jury by itself to not convict her. Maybe they just didn't want to be the ones to put a pretty young woman to death... or maybe they truly felt she wasn't guilty of any of it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!